this is one question i've always wanted an answer to, i couldnt find an awful lot of reliable info and i just wondered what you guys think about it?_________________A tomb now suffices him for whom the whole world was not sufficient-Alexander the Great

this is one question i've always wanted an answer to, i couldnt find an awful lot of reliable info and i just wondered what you guys think about it?

I'd say "in the beginning", when primitive people we confronted with the nature surrounding them, from that came respecting them, then came worshiping them and naming them et voila there are the first gods, but most likely my way of reasoning is too simple, Christym, but I think naming things is in the very nature of humans, and to be honest I'd rather prefer to name the great absent one today as Ra, Aton, or Sun than "The great yellow disk in the sky" every time I refer to it; just my of a contribution, though

I dont think there is something like "the" egyption religion". They summed up different believings, tried to find compromisses, added new aspects, and so on. So I don't think the religion of the 3rd dynasty is the same as in the 4th dynasty. Maybe there even was no "official" religion ever: There are some "common" opinions - but you could/must find the truth for your own...

Just my own opinion after some reading... but cannot tell you a source. Mybe I am totally wrong.

My impression is that Egyptian religion was complicated, changing and dependent on the region one was in.

The old petroglyphs show images of deities in boats, bovine gods, etc. It looks like deities such as Bat and Hathor are old, as is Neith for instance.

One problem is that the beliefs of the very earliest times were not written down. So we do not really know what they thought and believed. Some educated guesses can be made, but some things remain a mystery (to me at least).

It is interesting to see old petroglyphs of boats with people in ritual garb in them. That suggests that their religion was influenced by their proximity to the Nile. That makes sense to me, I have to say. The Nile would have been a main source of transportation but also life.

The other aspect is the early depictions of cows and ostriches. Somehow that also made it into their religion(s). Apis Bull, Feather of Maat, etc._________________Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/

Menes was the one who build Memphis. And reading the Palermo Stone I got the impression, that the first castles and temples where also build after him.... But there must be older temples (of stone), arent they?

Does anybody know where are very old temples - maybe temples before Menes?

To my knowledge the oldest structures are in Hierakonpolis (and likely Buto).
The Hierakonpolis site goes back to the pre-dynastic period. The oldest temple there is dated to ca 3500 BC, so a good 500+ years before Menes._________________Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/

There is also the site of Nabta Playa about 100km west of Abu Simbel. This was excavated by Professor Fred Wendorf and is believed to be between 7000 and 6500 years old. It has standing stones which are beside a lake and would have been partially submerged during the Summer. This possibly relating to the Egyptian Creation myth where Atum rises on a mount from the primal waters of chaos, Nun.
The site, which comprises a circle of stones and markers aligning sunpositions as a sort of seasonal calendar, could be considered to be a "proto-temple" linking the cycles of the sun with the rise and fall of the lifegiving water.

@Anneke: If I have understood it correct: Aha "closed" the original temple in Hierakonpolis, put all holy things in some holes (to be burried in holy ground) - and build a "normal" temple? Is this correct?

So before Menes & Co: Round structrues, with and after them "normal" as rectangles?

Not quite. The temple in Hierakonpolis is described as "paraboloid" court in Wilkinson's complete temples. The image looks like it's almost rectangular but with rounded edges. The enclosure was 32 m long and 13 m wide. The court contained a large mound of sand and at one end a flag or totem may have stood. On the south side the main shrine stood. This structure was rectangular in shape.

Harsomtis wrote:

@Anneke: If I have understood it correct: Aha "closed" the original temple in Hierakonpolis, put all holy things in some holes (to be burried in holy ground) - and build a "normal" temple? Is this correct?

I don't remember reading anything about that. Off the top of my head I only know of Aha's building in Abydos. I would have to research that a bit to give a sensible answer

Harsomtis wrote:

So before Menes & Co: Round structrues, with and after them "normal" as rectangles?

Personally, I'm not ready to draw that conclusion.
I think at least the burial structures found for the pre-dynastic kings were rectangular in shape. So that "style" may go back a bit further than you are indicating?_________________Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/

Not quite. The temple in Hierakonpolis is described as "paraboloid" court

Yes, so without "edges" - with edges, so realy rectangular would be "normal" and "easy", isn't it? Mastabas already exists (so we are not longer in the pre-history with circle-houses as in the stone-age. So, maybe there were no edges to make clear for everyone, that is a special building - a temple? So why did they change it to the "more simple" rectangular form? Influence of another culture? A lost War?

Or is the no-edges-impression of mine wrong, because other old temples are rectangular?

anneke wrote:

Harsomtis wrote:

@Anneke: If I have understood it correct: Aha "closed" the original temple in Hierakonpolis, put all holy things in some holes (to be burried in holy ground) - and build a "normal" temple? Is this correct?

I don't remember reading anything about that. Off the top of my head I only know of Aha's building in Abydos. I would have to research that a bit to give a sensible answer

Would be nice. Maybe it is no longer accepted, that the palettes and other artefacts were burried there, when the old temple was closed.

Lutz has more detailed info on that subject and references to books or sites.

My understanding after twenty years of study is that Egyptian religion grew out of worshipping nature and to visualize this, making totems. The foundation of this religion, was animistic. Like we know from what we call “primitive cultures”. A.E. began with the settlement of several tribes on both sides of the Nile. Each tribe having their principal God and/or Goddess…in time some became more popular and widespread. This was due to the interaction between all these tribes, and finally the unification of these tribes; the tribes of Lower Egypt and those of Upper Egypt. At certain point in history, unified…but not quite so…they kept using in their language the terms of “Lower and Upper Egypt”, “the North and South” Both parts of even the unified country kept throughout history their own standards, the papyrus for Lower Egypt, the lotus for Upper Egypt. Same as the animal symbols for the country, the snake and vulture, one belonging to Lower Egypt, the other to Upper Egypt. A.E. is in that case quite unique. A unified country, with a religion depending on the Ruling Classes . To conclude…it’s all about money, status, wealth…_________________

My understanding after twenty years of study is that Egyptian religion grew out of worshipping nature and to visualize this, making totems.

That is a very old theory. And there could never be a proof. But, yes, it sounds logical. But I did not get the point why that should be connected to the change of the temple-design?!

Ranoferhotep wrote:

This was due to the interaction between all these tribes, and finally the unification of these tribes;

It is strange, that they synchronised their language, their signs - but not their religion...

Ranoferhotep wrote:

the tribes of Lower Egypt and those of Upper Egypt. At certain point in history, unified…but not quite so…they kept using in their language the terms of “Lower and Upper Egypt”, “the North and South”

That would be a new topic (and i don't know how to move this to a new topic in this forum, sorry): Where is the first mentioning of Lower and Upper Egypt? Of Egypt? Of North and South-Egypt?

What about the Nomes? Is a Nome ALWAYS through all times connected with either north or south? (So none of the "middle" nomes changed from north to south?) How did the nomes develop? Did they change in size? (As far as I know they changed their signs?) Is a nome "defined" as a part of "holy egypt" - and others are just "conquered countries" (like Nubia)? 4 nomes are "newer" - which one? Why?

My understanding after twenty years of study is that Egyptian religion grew out of worshipping nature and to visualize this, making totems.

That is a very old theory. And there could never be a proof. But, yes, it sounds logical. But I did not get the point why that should be connected to the change of the temple-design?!

There is proof off it, ancient cavern drawings. I think Anneke has shown some nice pictures on the forum here

Ranoferhotep wrote:

This was due to the interaction between all these tribes, and finally the unification of these tribes;

It is strange, that they synchronised their language, their signs - but not their religion...

This may seem strange, but if we regard the different tribes not so unlikely, we have to look the A.E. history completely. And they did try. Let’s take, Amun as an example, his rise began in the 18th dynasty, before that He was only a local God. It was due to the ruling class of that time, which not only included Pharaoh but also clergy, He could become the principal God. And to make Him a principal God, pharaoh and clergy connected Him with more ancient God’s.

Ranoferhotep wrote:

the tribes of Lower Egypt and those of Upper Egypt. At certain point in history, unified…but not quite so…they kept using in their language the terms of “Lower and Upper Egypt”, “the North and South”

That would be a new topic (and i don't know how to move this to a new topic in this forum, sorry): Where is the first mentioning of Lower and Upper Egypt? Of Egypt? Of North and South-Egypt?

On this I can’t answer, here we have need off the scholars present on the forum, but A.E. kept using both. Epithets for pharaoh stayed, Lord of the Two Lands, Ruler of North and South, Lord of the Crowns, i.e. the crown off Lower Egypt and the crown of Upper Egypt. Magnificent put together in watt we know as the “pschent”

What about the Nomes? Is a Nome ALWAYS through all times connected with either north or south? (So none of the "middle" nomes changed from north to south?) How did the nomes develop? Did they change in size? (As far as I know they changed their signs?) Is a nome "defined" as a part of "holy egypt" - and others are just "conquered countries" (like Nubia)? 4 nomes are "newer" - which one? Why?

Osiris II has given a nice link about the Nomes. They did change in A.E. history, some grew larger, some smaller, or in other words, some Nomes were more influential at certain point than other. Pharaoh was the binding of al off these, there was a centralized power, but….depending on who ruled …even pharaoh could be overruled. _________________

this is one question i've always wanted an answer to, i couldnt find an awful lot of reliable info and i just wondered what you guys think about it?

Hello,

I agree that they started by explaining nature by myths
and personifications of obscure natural forces, but I think
then when the first rulers were emerging who would be
the later pharaohs, religion became firmly entrenched
and united to political power and it remained so for millennia
all over the world and in all cultures, confirming thus an
association between priests (chamans) and kings for their
mutual benefit, each validating and supporting the other.